Translational vision science & technology · 2024
Efficiency, Precision, Validity, and Reliability of GlauCAT-Asian Computerized Adaptive Tests in Measuring Glaucoma-Related Quality of Life.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fenwick Eva K, Man Ryan E K, Lim Belicia, Baskaran Mani, Nongpiur Monisha, Sng Chelvin C A, Iyer Jayant Venkatramani, Husain Rahat, Perera Shamira, Wong Tina, Low Jin Rong, Huang Olivia Shimin, Lun Katherine, Loe Bao Sheng, Aung Tin, Lamoureux Ecosse L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the efficiency, precision, and agreement of GlauCAT-Asian and its corresponding validity and reliability.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 219 participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 66.59 ± 8.61 years; 34% female) across the spectrum of glaucoma severity and 50 glaucoma suspects were recruited from glaucoma clinics in Singapore. Participants answered seven computerized adaptive testing (CAT) evaluations (Ocular Comfort, Activity Limitation, Lighting, Mobility, Concerns, Psychosocial, Glaucoma Management) and underwent eye examinations. Efficiency (mean number of items required for each CAT and time taken for CAT versus full item banks [IBs]), agreement (concordance between CATs and full IB person measures, henceforth referred to as scores), and precision (standard error of measurement [SE]) were evaluated. Other validity and reliability metrics were also assessed.
RESULTS: The mean number of items administered ranged from 9 (Mobility/Glaucoma Management) to 12 (Ocular Comfort). Compared to answering the full IBs, CATs provided an average time saving of 38.3% (range, 10% to 70.6% for Lighting and Activity Limitation, respectively). Agreement between scores obtained by CAT versus full IB was high (intracorrelation coefficient ≥0.75), as was precision of score estimates (mean SE range: 0.35 for Psychosocial to 0.29 for Mobility). Scores from Activity Limitation, Mobility, Lighting, and Concerns decreased significantly as glaucoma severity increased (criterion validity; P-trend <0.05). All tests displayed good convergent/divergent validity and test-retest reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: GlauCAT-Asian provides efficient, precise, accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of the patient-centered impact of glaucoma.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: GlauCAT-Asian may provide a valuable clinical tool for ophthalmologists to monitor impact of disease progression and the effectiveness of therapies.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 219 participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 66.59 ± 8.61 years; 34% female) across the spectrum of glaucoma severity and 50 glaucoma suspects were recruited from glaucoma clinics in Singapore. Participants answered seven computerized adaptive testing (CAT) evaluations (Ocular Comfort, Activity Limitation, Lighting, Mobility, Concerns, Psychosocial, Glaucoma Management) and underwent eye examinations. Efficiency (mean number of items required for each CAT and time taken for CAT versus full item banks [IBs]), agreement (concordance between CATs and full IB person measures, henceforth referred to as scores), and precision (standard error of measurement [SE]) were evaluated. Other validity and reliability metrics were also assessed.
RESULTS: The mean number of items administered ranged from 9 (Mobility/Glaucoma Management) to 12 (Ocular Comfort). Compared to answering the full IBs, CATs provided an average time saving of 38.3% (range, 10% to 70.6% for Lighting and Activity Limitation, respectively). Agreement between scores obtained by CAT versus full IB was high (intracorrelation coefficient ≥0.75), as was precision of score estimates (mean SE range: 0.35 for Psychosocial to 0.29 for Mobility). Scores from Activity Limitation, Mobility, Lighting, and Concerns decreased significantly as glaucoma severity increased (criterion validity; P-trend <0.05). All tests displayed good convergent/divergent validity and test-retest reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: GlauCAT-Asian provides efficient, precise, accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of the patient-centered impact of glaucoma.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: GlauCAT-Asian may provide a valuable clinical tool for ophthalmologists to monitor impact of disease progression and the effectiveness of therapies.